“Receive not an accusation against an elder, except at the mouth of two or three witnesses.”
If that rule were followed strictly, many needless scandals and troubles in churches would be avoided. It is such an easy thing to call a man off and whisper, “Don’t say anything about this, but I want to tell you something about our pastor.” We should stop the whisperer at once: “Are you about to tell me something against the pastor? If so, do you know it to be true, or are you proposing to circulate a hearsay? If you know it to be true, can you furnish the corroborative testimony of other witnesses? And will you and the other witnesses go with me now and tell what you know to the pastor himself, face to face, giving him an opportunity to meet the accusation?” The whisperer will be apt to reply: “Oh, no! I don’t know anything myself. I have heard so and so.” Thus we not only silence the whisperer, but we save ourselves from becoming a partaker of his sin. The necessity for this rule, in all cases, is more emphasized in the case of a preacher, whose reputation is a large part of his capital.
I had a remarkable experience on this line. I went to a certain church to help in a meeting, and noticed one man who kept praising my preaching ad nauseam, while others looked sad when they heard him. After a while he came to me and wanted to put me up against some members of the church, and especially against the pastor. I said, “Look here; you don’t know whom you are talking to. I came here to help, not to harm this pastor. I won’t hold a meeting to hurt a pastor. If you have any accusations or complaints to make, and if you can bring two or three witnesses, let us go before the pastor himself and then if necessary before the church and fairly investigate this matter before we go on with the meeting.” That sawed him off and he never praised my preaching any more.
It is shameful the way good, God-fearing men are slandered by irresponsible reports against them. Bring the accuser to task and make him come out in the open and give his corroborative evidence, and allow the accused a chance to answer.
Timothy is there in Ephesus, a great city with many thousands of church members, and many preachers. He is there in an apostle’s stead, and from all over the country some people, if encouraged, will be bringing him private word about some of the preachers. Paul says, “Don’t receive an accusation against an elder except at the mouth of two or three witnesses.”
The Mosaic law went further: If a charge was made and not sustained, the perjurer received the punishment that the accused would have received if found guilty. Such a restriction puts a brake on the slanderer’s tongue. When we thus hold a man responsible for what he says he is not so ready to talk about people.
- B. H. Carroll, An Interpretation of the English Bible, Vol. 16, The Pastoral Epistles, The Epistles of Peter, Jude and John, Pgs. 71-72
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
Frankly, we as Christians, ought to be more careful about making unfounded accusations against anybody, and much more so within the body.
Many today have been scared into thinking that only an elder can rebuke an elder. This is one reason Federal Vision is spreading throughout Reformed churches. Let those who are Reformed, elder or not, stand up and rebuke those wicked elders who teach the heresy of Federal Vision! Let’s remember that Calvin plainly taught that anyone can rebuke an elder!
Here is my lecture on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIFgz7eLlg0&feature=channel_page
Hi Monty,
I agree that anyone can rebuke an elder if it is regarding a sin that is inconsistent with a profession of faith or for teaching, approving of, or even being indifferent to, false doctrines/heresy, etc.
We, at Biblical Thought, denounce FV and all forms of Auburnism.
Stephen,
I’m glad to hear you condemning the heresy of Federal Vision.
Here are a few more things I believe should be ardently denounced by Calvinists today:
1) The Three Points of Common Grace
2) The Neo-orthodox theology of Cornelius Van Til
3) Natural Law
4) Post-mill/theonomic/reconstructionism
5) Sacerdotalism (R. Scott Clark, for example–wait…isn’t he proponent of nearly all of the above?)
6) Auricular Confession (Stephen J. Nichols, Westminster Philadelphia, see his book “Martin Luther: A Guided Tour Of His Life And Thought”–see page 161)
7) Empiricism
Sola Fide,
Monty
Monty,
I’m not familiar with #6. What does it say? I don’t have that work.
Re: #5, I’m not aware of Clark being a theonomist/reconstructionist though. I know he is helping VanDrunen push a “two kingdoms” theory to young students at WSC, but unless he has had a recent shift in thought I don’t think he’s a recon prop nor a postmiller. But he certainly loves natural law.
The quote from Nichols is an attempt to introduce the practice of auricular confession into Non-Lutheran and Catholic circles for consideration. Nichols, who is supposed to be Reformed, never refutes the practice.
Stephen J. Nichols, Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia, writes:
“First, he stresses that confession is ultimately to God, and further that God alone grants absolution on Christ’s work. Thirdly, Luther follows the instruction given in James 5:16 to “Confess our sins one to another.”…Once this confession is made to the pastor, the pastor is to say, “God be merciful to you and strengthen your faith.” Then he should ask, “Do you believe that this forgiveness is the forgiveness of God?” Once the person confessing answers, “Yes, I do,” the pastor replies, “Be it done for you as you have believed.” Again, this may strike us, especially non-Lutherans, as odd, YET IT MAY WELL BE SOMETHING WORTH THINKING ABOUT….While we MAY dismiss the letter of the law concerning Luther on confession, following the spirit of the law on the matter may be of assistance”
(Martin Luther: A Guided Tour Of His Life And Thought, page 161-162, emphasis my own)
As Calvinists, we believe that Christ alone is the mediator between God and man. We need not confess our sins to any priest. James was not speaking of the Roman Catholic doctrine of Auricular Confession, and Nichols should have made this crystal clear.
Sola Fide,
Red Beetle
Here is my critical review of Nichols book:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0U6k81TJ_Q&feature=channel_page
Sola Fide,
Red Beetle
Hi Monty,
Where can I locate Van Til as a New Orthodox Theologian (or tenancies thereof)? I don’t believe he shared Barth’s Totaliter Alliter nor Barth’s understanding of inerrancy in relation to moral revelation.
Is there another element of N.O that you are referring to.
In regards to F.V. – what is the position of B.T. or F.D. in regards to essential heresy? While I agree they are clearly wrong, I don’t find them essentially in error. I join John Frame in this analysis.
In reference to Doug Wilson, I find him a member of the Body of Christ, he apparently just happens to be the ass.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
If you think Doug Wilson is a Christian, then you don’t understand Justification By Faith Alone–or you are not familiar with what Federal Vision teaches concerning justification. Read “Not Reformed At All” By John W. Robbins and Sean Gerety.
Doug Wilson signed the document titled, “A Joint Federal Vision Statement.”
In that document, under the section titled, “Law and Gospel,” the following confusion of law and Gospel is maintained: “We believe that any passage, whether indicative or imperative, can be heard by the faithful as good news.”
Imperative statements are commands, thus, by definition they cannot be considered as news, for news is comprised of indicative remarks. The Gospel is not what we should do, but it is what Christ has done for us! Here is a link to Wilson’s Federal Vision nonsense:
http://www.federal-vision.com/pdf/fvstatement.pdf
Such an hermeneutic confuses the Gospel with the law, mixing faith and works–destroying Sola Fide.
Now, Let’s look at the neo-orthodox theology of Cornelius Van Til.
Cornelius Van Til taught that ALL the teaching of Scripture is apparently contradictory [see his "Common Grace And Witness Bearing, page 22].
Van Til wrote, “Our knowledge is analogical and therefore MUST be paradoxical” (The Defense of the Faith, chapter 3, section 4, page 44, Presbyterian And Reformed Publishing, 1995–emphasis is my own) This is contradicts the perspicuity of Scripture, not to mention chapter one of the Westminster Confession of Faith. It is an attack on Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. The Gospel is not paradoxical; it is clear and consistent.
Paradoxical theology is an attribute of Roman Catholicism (remember, Rome claims that the Bible is so confusing that it needs an infallible interpreter–The Catholic Church).
Soren Kierkegaard, Karl Barth, and Emil Brunner are other neo-orthodox theologians who claim the Scripture is paradoxical.
As a note of interest, almost all the proponents of Federal Vision are disciples of Van Til, who publicly defended Norman Shepherd’s heretical views of Justification By Faith And Works when Shepherd was forced to resign from Westminster Seminary, Pa.
Red Beetle
Westminster Seminary professor VanDrunen at Cathlolic-Sponsored Conference
Tue, 6 Jan 2009 9:00 pm
Dear Friends,
The Romanist associations of men of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Westminster Seminary California continue unchecked and seemingly unquestioned.
Dr. David Van Drunen, OPC minister and professor of systematic theology and Christian ethics at WSC, will be a featured panelist at the Fifth Annual Conference on Christian Legal Thought sponsored by the Lumen Christi Institute, a Roman Catholic think tank.
Van Drunen received his Ph. D. from the Loyola University of Chicago, a Jesuit school. For a number of years he has also been associated with the Acton Institute, another Roman Catholic think tank.
In 2004 he received that organization’s Novak Award, which included a $10,000 cash prize, for his research on the legal thought of the Roman Catholic priest Thomas Aquinas. That research produced a book, Law and Custom: The Thought of Thomas Aquinas and the Future of the Common Law, which effectively endorsed the Roman Catholic “natural law” theory (which denies Sola Scriptura, instead promoting the idea that Scripture does not constitute man’s20sole authority for morals and ethics).
The church in our time has forgotten what it means to be Protestant. May God raise up a new band of Luthers and Calvins in our day.
In Christ,
Paul Elliott
Visit my video page to watch lectures on Calvinism:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=RedBeetle&view=videos
Sola Fide,
Red Beetle
Monty,
The problem is that when people see Rome as a valid church (at some point), they end up compromising with it. When people accept Rome’s version of church history, councils, creeds, church fathers, and baptism, what else is left but to just be done with it and go back to her?
You might find interesting this article about the ecumenical Apostle’s Creed: http://www.scionofzion.com/apostles_creed.htm originally from The Trinity Foundation. Here are a few quotes:
Quote:
Roman Catholics, Greek Catholics, Anglicans, Liberals, and Protestants all recite the Apostles’ Creed, yet the Reformers thought rightly that the Roman Catholic Church with its papacy is Antichrist. How can this be? Rome has recently called Protestant dissenters to its hierarchy and doctrine, “separated brethren,” and continues to attempt to end the separation by such means as ecumenical councils, documents, and creeds. The Apostles’ Creed is one ecumenical bridge over the gap. The Apostles’ Creed is a lowest-common denominator attempt at ecumenism.
The Apostles’ Creed does not perform the requisite functions of a creed: It does not accurately summarize the content of Christian belief; it omits essential Christian doctrines; it does not distinguish heterodoxy from orthodoxy; and it is ambiguous, rather than clear. Because of these defects, it cannot unify the hearts of God’s people, for, as an ecumenical creed, it allows many who do not hold to the Gospel revealed by God to profess to be Christians.
God’s revealed truth divides men; but it also is the only basis of Christian unity.
But if the words of a creed join together believer and unbeliever, Protestant, Roman, Anglican, Liberal, and Greek, then the creed has failed to achieve Christian unity, but has accomplished the purpose of the enemy, who sows tares among wheat.
When Rome decides to call “home” the “separated brethren” of the Protestant churches, she will no doubt use the ambiguous terminology of this very Creed to further her aim. The call will be legitimized by the gentle reminder that “we all believe in the one Holy Catholic Church, do we not? You’ve been confessing it in your churches for centuries; now come home, come home to the one place you’ve been confessing for all those generations. Mother Kirk has her arms spread wide to embrace you.”
Protestant Reformers protested against that very institution, the organization calling itself the Holy Catholic Church, which is a governmental power, a nation unto itself, and not a church at all. Roman Catholics recite this Creed, using the same words, without disclaimers, and people know very well what they mean. Why adopt their confession? Why can we not frame the words of a true confession to reflect Scripture?
End quote.
Denise,
I was very glad when John Robbins published that article in his Trinity Review. If you have not read the essays in the Trinity Review Archive, or if you have not read the books of Gordon H. Clark, then please do so immediately. They are better than seminary, especially Westminster Seminary!
God bless,
Red Beetle
Hi Monty,
You are passionate without thought.
As I have stated before, while I would agree that Doug Wilson is heretical, I do not find him heretical in the primary doctrines of the Christian faith.
The fact that imperative statements are not news is correct. The fact that it could be good news (connotative understanding) is fine. You are confusing the lines of primary heresy vs. secondary heresy nevertheless even if he did make a grammatical blunder.
James White’s assistant agreed with me via White’s debate with Wilson. I have also been to Wilson’s church and corporate office to discuss the matter between Wilson, Mike Lawyer, and Doug Jones (and a few others).
I do not find evidence to convey Van Til as a Neo Orthodox theologian. While the Bible is plenary, it is not always simplistic (e.g. Romans 1:16 – “te proton kai” – “to the Jew first and also to the Greek should render = “to BOTH the Jew and the Greek – see BAGD with the use of kai in this construction).
Van Til’s circular hermeneutic was valid and not neo orthodox. Though I disagree with this position.
Soren Kierkegaard was NOT a Neo Theologian (lol). He was the founder of Existentialism. Neo-Theology was not “invented” until the rise of Barth/Brunner about a hundred year later.
Since you are confusing passion with logic, to develop fruit in this you must provide evidence where Wilson has denied 1 or more of the essential doctrines of the Christian Faith.
I’m not defending Wilson and the FV gang. It annoys me and I find Wilson somewhat of a punk. But the objective analysis of doctrine in reflection to Biblical truth as a compass shows your emotions riding above reality. Please prove me wrong if you have the means.
You have not shown primary heresy as of yet. I remain convinced (along with John Frame) that Wilson along with his denomination (Confederate) is not in primary heresy, though I would agree that it is definitely not Reformed.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
Hi Monty,
Remember, we are not talking about Reformed vs. Non-Reformed, we are talking about the bare nuts of Core Christian doctrine.
While SOME Reformed doctrines are the essentials, most are NOT.
Provide evidence where he (or Peter Leithart, etc) has gone “mad” in this area, and your point may have some more weight. I don’t think you can provide such weight.
If you would like to research this, you can start with Doug Wilson’s blog.
http://www.dougwils.com
His blog is formatted a lot more professionally then Morey’s is. You can search past archives and interact a lot more efficiently.
good luck!
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
Jean Cauvin,
You cannot consider Law to be Gospel in a discussion of how a man is to be justified before God. To do so removes you from the Calvinist camp. We are talking about Justification By Faith Alone. Confusing Law and Gospel, refusing to recognize any difference between the two, is an attempt to teach the Catholic view of justification by faith and works.
Wilson and his heretical friends never once make any effort to warn of the danger of confusing Law and Gospel, in fact, they deny that one should even distinguish between the two when reading the Bible. They write:
“We deny that the law and Gospel should be considered as a hermeneutics, or treated as such” (A Joint Federal Vision Statement, page 6).
Not surprisingly, in the very next section of they signed paper, Wilson and company never teach the critical point that one’s faith is NEVER active in Justification, but ALWAYS passive. Calvinism always teaches that it is the object of faith, never the act of it, that justifies. Instead, the section is intentionally short, vague, and metaphorical. Thus, while paying lip-service to Sola Fide, they assert the heresy of Evangelical Obedience!
“Neo-orthodox Theologians”
I was using the term to mean those theologians claiming to be orthodox, but teaching that the Bible is full of irresolvable paradox and contradictions.
Thus, Van Til, Kierkegaard, Barth, and so on.
Van Til’s teaching is not Christian, regardless of what you choose to think. If you really believe that it is, then please deal with the quote I provided. Please show how Van Til’s remark does not attack the perspicuity of Scripture. Please explain how the Gospel, which is comprised of propositions (not commands), is a paradox–as Van Til asserts. I find nothing paradoxical about the Gospel. Isn’t it interesting how defenders of Douglas Wilson find the Gospel in particular, and the Bible as a whole, to be paradoxical?
Sola Fide,
Monty L. Collier
Hi Monty,
I’ll work backwards upon your post.
Those who knew Van Til (Frame) and those who knew OF him via a class setting perhaps (Morey, etc) have testified to the fact that Van Til said things out of a blunder that was either unclear to the hearer or else a blunder to begin with. Thus, it is important to examine Van Til as a WHOLE verses a few points (like his “circular hermeneutics).
For example, Van Til made a few blunders about the Trinity, but as a whole, he was orthodox. This could have been due to old age or depression after his wife was placed under a coma.
Van Til never got over his wife’s illness/coma/death.
However, regarding your statement, let’s examine it.
First off, the concept of Neo-Orthodoxy in terms of it’s predominate “image” of heresy has to do with the relation of inerrancy to genre which in turn rolls into application.
The narratives and propositions being less inspired (some writers would say not inspired at all), and that the moral “statements” were only inspired as to THEIR APPLICATION.
This was NOT Van Til’s position AT ALL and you have grossly misrepresented his position due to the lack of understanding of his method of approach towards logic and hermeneutics.
The paradox of proposition and imperative is related to a deductive understanding of the argument of the “Transcendental Argument” (via Kant) which was related to consistency.
Thus the imperatives and the propositions are paradox in how they RELATE to each other SOMETIMES.
This is 100% non Neo-Orthodoxy. This is an ironic charge since Van Til refuted Neo-Orthodoxy on occasion.
I would agree with Van Til via the deductive understanding of the gospel that there are paradoxes.
1) John 3:16, vs. 1 John 2:15
2) The Virgin Birth,
3) The Killing of thy self to make alive again.
4) 7 loaves and 2 fish narrative
5) Drinking poison (Mark 16).
6) James 2:12
So the issue had to do with method of first principles (where you start). Since you seem to be of the thinking similar to Hodge and Warfield (inductuve a-posterori), the confusion is understandable on your part.
I would not argue the circularity of Van Til however (I don’t believe G. Clark argued via circularity despite the claims out there), but his point is important and worth noting.
Perhaps you are confused over the definition of Paradox as it applies to the Hermeneutics of Scripture? Are these not paradoxes?
In regards to Wilson. I agree that it is somewhat foolish how Wilson articulates a blend of law and grace. But after discussing it with his associates, it appears that, though it is foolish, it is not primary heresy.
It does appear that he is a Calvinist in the New Testament while an Arminian in the Old Testament. Though, as it applies to the New Covenant, Wilson has conveyed to me that ultimately it is Grace through Faith alone (sola fide).
While Stephen and you may find me heretical as to what I’m about to say, It should be obvious to those not blinded by tradition that there are several “gospels throughouth the Old Testament. Just like there are several “types” of baptisms.
The arch-type of those gospels is the dominate gospel of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
While they were under the law in the O.T, they were always justified by HIS (Jesus Christ – Heb 12:2). faith (Hab 2:4).
Upon interviewing at his main office, I have found that Mr. Wilson also agrees with this.
The FV has been nothing but a head ache and he is somewhat stupid for going though with it.
The main idiocy of the FV has to do with a pagan synchronism with Rome and Christ in relation to their covenants via the seal of Baptism.
Via this view, he obviously views Rome as having a Biblical view of the Trinity. MOST protestants believe this today, however, it is Wilson that should be at least respected for carrying this premise to it’s logical conclusion.
For one to really differ with Wilson, they would have to know and adhere to the notion that Rome’s Trinity is NOT the same Trinity as found in Scripture. If they do not, then via logical consistency, they are forced into Wilson’s FV.
It should be noted that I am NOT defending Wilson. I do find him to be part of the Body of Christ, though it appears his part is the “dairiair .”
Call his “right hand man” and talk to him yourself. He sits about 20 ft. away from him. You can even e-mail Wilson via the e-mail below if addressed to him.
Mike Lawyer
208-882-2034
mikel.lawyer@gmail.com
Hopefully this clarifies things. If not, keep challenging away and I’ll try to correct your misunderstandings as we progress. But one thing is certain, you are confusing primary heresy vs. secondary heresy. Both men are NOT guilty of primary heresy.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
[Concerning Jean Cauvin and Cornelius Van Til]
I have plainly stated that the teachings of Cornelius Van Til are heretical. They are not Christian.
Here is Jean Cauvin’s response:
“Those who knew Van Til (Frame) and those who knew OF him via a class setting perhaps (Morey, etc) have testified to the fact that Van Til said things out of a blunder that was either unclear to the hearer or else a blunder to begin with. Thus, it is important to examine Van Til as a WHOLE verses a few points (like his “circular hermeneutics).”
I’m not interested in hearsay about Cornelius Van Til. What someone said Van Til said is irrelevant. I’m dealing with the heresy actually published by Cornelius Van Til. His nonsense is still being published, and that is exactly why it must be dealt with in a straight forward Biblical manner. Van Til’s supporters are incapable of defending their master. This is why I provide quotes, while they provide excuses. Your notion that Van Til taught heresy in the parts, but somehow the whole of his teaching is orthodox, is ridiculous. Such a notion reveals that you do not understand that the system of Christianity is logically coherent. A denial of the orthodox view of the Trinity necessarily leads to a denial of Justification By Faith Alone. It is no mystery that Catholics deny Sola Fide, for they do NOT hold to the Biblical view of the Trinity, regardless of what Westminster Seminary, California might claim.
Jean Cauvin writes:
“For example, Van Til made a few blunders about the Trinity, but as a whole, he was orthodox. This could have been due to old age or depression after his wife was placed under a coma.”
Van Til denied the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity. He taught, and I quote, “We speak of the essence of God in contrast to the three persons of the Godhead. We speak of God as a person; yet we speak also of three persons in the Godhead” (An Introduction To Systematic Theology, Chapter 17, page 220 [P&R Publishing]).
The Westminster Confession of Faith never identifies God as one person and three persons in the same sense. The correct teaching is 1God=3Persons, not 1Person=3Persons. The Westminster Confession correctly states, “In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons…” (WCF, 2, 3).
Van Til goes on to write, “The persons of the Godhead are mutually exhaustive of one another” (An Introduction To Systematic Theology, Chapter 17, page 220). Van Til is here denying that there is any difference between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is the Trinitarian heresy of modalism. The correct teaching can be found again in the Westminster Confession which states, “The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternal begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son” (WCF, 2, 3). Notice that the Confession NEVER states that the three Persons of the Godhead are mutually exhaustive of each other. The Larger Catechism states that the Persons of the Godhead are “the same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished by their personal properties” (Westminster Larger Catechism, Q&A 9.). Again, there is no mention of the three Persons being mutually exhaustive of each other.
To claim that Van Til may have committed this heresy out of depression is simply an appeal to misery (ad misericordiam). It’s an informal logical fallacy: it’s irrelevant.
Jean Cauvin again writes:
“Van Til never got over his wife’s illness/coma/death.”
Again, this is irrelevant to what he published.
Next, Jean Cauvin attempts to defend Van Til’s theology of irresolvable paradox by stating:
“This was NOT Van Til’s position AT ALL and you have grossly misrepresented his position due to the lack of understanding of his method of approach towards logic and hermeneutics.”
This is standard Van Tilian rhetoric. Rather than deal with what Van Til actually wrote, Van Tilians simply claim the one objecting has somehow misunderstood Van Til. Regardless, Van Til was very clear that the paradoxes found in Scripture can and should never be resolved by anyone following his method. He not only denies that the paradoxes can be solved, goes as far as to assert that the paradoxes are actual contradictions! Van Til writes:
“Shall we then follow Karl Barth in saying that contradictions in Scripture do not matter in the least because what the gospel is really about takes place in a realm ‘above’ ordinary history? Or should we with Gordon Clark say that the ‘contradiction’ that we think we ‘see’ is no real contradiction at all? We cannot follow any of these ways” (Toward A Reformed Apologetic, page 4).
Van Til, perhaps in a moment of clarity, writes the following about those who obey his teachings, and I quote,
“It is precisely because they are concerned to defend the Christian doctrine of revelation as basic to all intelligible human predication that they REFUSE TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT AT “STATING CLEARLY” ANY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, OR THE RELATION OF ANY ONE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE TO ANY OTHER CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. They will not attempt to “solve” the “paradoxes” involved in the relationship of the self-contained God to his dependent creatures” (An Introduction To Systematic Theology, Chapter 13, page 172).
As anyone can see from the quote, Van Til does not believe in teaching anything with any clarity (no wonder he’s so hard to understand). Van Til here refuses God’s command to teach the Bible clearly (Habukkuk 2:2, 1 Cor. 14:6-9). Van Til’s teaching is an explicit attack on Sola Scriptura.
The notion that the Gospel is paradoxical implies that the Good News is confusing, rather than clear. This is not only rejected by Scripture, but also rejected in the very first chapter of the WCF which states, “…those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” (WCF, Chapter 1, 7). There is nothing confusing about the Gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4). If the Gospel is confusing, that is, hid, then it is hid to them that are lost (2 Cor. 4:3, 1 Cor. 2:14).
Jean Cauvin’s claim that there are multiple gospels found in the Bible is an outright denial of Sola Fide. I’m not surprised he thinks that Federal Vision proponents are Christians.
Here are two basic videos on the Heresy of Cornelius Van Til:
1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv27YnxD-sM
2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYbl_chDY5c&feature=related
Sola Fide,
Monty L. Collier
Hi Monty,
I respect your passion and attempts.You seem like a nice person and a nice Christian dedicated to the faith. Though your arrow is pressed, the target has become not upon the tree, but upon your foot.
1) You have not established the primary vs. secondary status of heresy.
2) ad misericordiam was not used since I did not appeal to emotion of ARGUMENT, but rather stated historical testimony as to the man’s later “mis-haps.”
3) Looking at the whole vs. the parts is logical, looking at a part and not a whole is the logical fallacy of composition which you commit.
4) While the Westminster Confession has many primary doctrines, not ALL of them are primary.
5) If you are debating Van Til’s consistency with Reformed circles, this is different then relation his different from Christian circles.
Van Til made blunders about the Trinity, and the notion of his depression has been contributed as a factor. The fact that he denied the economical Trinity is absurd if you understand his view as a whole.
Van Til is very complex in his writings. A shoe-maker may have trouble understanding his argument(s). This does not mean that the gospel is “hard to understand” in terms of it’s bear roots, but in terms of the formulation vs. application, there is much meat behind the gospels for the regenerate.
Many opponents of Van Til do not understand this formation vs. application concept and many do not know how that applies to his Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence.
When Van Til focused on the Trinity as an ontology, his emphasis there had to do with formulation, not application of understanding.
We can see where Van Til emphasizes the economical aspect in reference to the “one and the many.” For Van Til, the problem of the “one and the many” is solved via the Biblical understanding of the Trinity. If Van Til denied the economical aspect, then the many would be a logical fallacy of contradiction and impossible to solve.
Since the “one and the many” (never mind always matter, always matter never mind) was a focal point of Van Til’s life work, then it is obvious that he adhered to the economical understanding of the godhead and the charge of modalism becomes absurd.
In order for solution for the “one and the MANY,” the ontological status of a “concrete universal” must be established for the solution of its propositions to have given justification and warrant. Similar to Schaeffer’s take of the Infinite Reference Point (via Sarte’s finite reference point), the emphasis is on the ontology so as to relate the logic and reason of EMPHASIS towards the solution from and away from the source of the godhead itself.
The charge to accuse Van Til as a Neo-Orthodox theologian is absurd. Van Til opposed Barth on the relation of his ultimate focus, that of epistemology. Barth took on a Kantian epistemology, creating a false dichotomy of knowledge (reason) and faith. Since the Trinity was the very solution against the secular dichotomy (e.g. “one and the many.”) then the accusations become a ridiculous charge.
“The whole problem of knowledge has constantly been that of bringing the one and the many together. When man looks about him and within him, he sees that there is a great variety of facts. The question that comes up at once is whether there is any unity in this variety, whether there is one principle in accordance with which all these many things appear and occur. All non-Christian thought [(e.g. BARTH)], if it has utilized the idea of a supra-mundane existence at all, has used this supra-mundane existence as furnishing only the unity or the a priori aspect of knowledge, while it has maintained that the a posteriori aspect of knowledge is something that is furnished by the universe. (Introduction to Systematic Theology, pg. 10).
And thus, the explanations to some of his blunders (which I admit) from a historical standpoint can be traced to the man’s emotional state of affairs.
Thus, with that in mind, the understanding of the “MAN” in relation to his depression of his wife is not argumentum ad misericordiam, since I am not using this as a form of argument in debate. This would only be a fallacy of application if I used it as an argument, but I am using it as a historical reference via Frame, Morey, Bahnsen, among others.
Since his entire life work has clarified things, this understanding should be acceptable to those of sound reason.
I might add that a similar charge is leveled against Gordon Clark. Many opponents (Dr. Phil Fernandez, Koukel, etc) claim that towards the end of his life he became “deluded.” They would ask him, if only knowledge results from God’s Word, then how can one received it empirically since it is the means of understanding (so the critics say). Upon asking, it is reported that Clark would say, “what Bible?”
And his students tried to convert him back to Christianity during his last remaining days upon earth.
This is completely stupid. Again, from a historical understanding, many have testified that Clark was very sarcastic and difficult to get along with. It is logical to infer that he was simply treating the questions in the frame of “Moronic” since these claims have been answered over and over again in his writings.
Not to mention the obvious teachings the Clark demonstrated in relation to Kant solving the problem of experience in relation to non-experience as it applies to knowing. Though one must experience in order to have the means of knowing, the experience itself is NOT that means.
Again, to those educated in Clark/Van Til, it’s obvious. Monty is simply “parroting” the Princeton arguments of Sproul, Gerstner, Geisler, etc.
It is sad that Van Til and Gordon Clark forever fought over the notion of 2+2=4 in relation to either analogical vs. uni-vocal understanding as it is reciprocated meaning towards God. This is stupid, and if they would have only gotten past this, the Body of Christ would be much more deadly against the enemies of today.
This should clarify things. If you continue to misrepresent logic in relation to its application of argument vs. history, it will become more clear as to why you are forced into these understandings, and thus the arrow will cause your foot to forever bleed.
Monty, explain to us how Van Til claimed to solve the “problem of the one and the many” by denying the economical Trinity? To those of a sound mind, this should end the “hate” and absurdity against a godly man who contributed much for the Body of Christ.
In regards to the many gospels in the O.T, this should not be a surprise. Genesis 12:3 for example was a gospel. The Arch-Type of THE gospel allowed that to be manifested in the Mystery as explained by Paul in such passages as Ephesians 3:9. The gospel of giving humankind a second chance after the flood was a gospel.
I’m simply using the term via the etymological understanding of “good news.” Though I relate ALL gospels as a “type”/”Proto-Type” in terms of its full application in the Gospel of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. This is 100% not FV since I apply the Sovereignty of God’s grace by His faith throughout ALL dispensations and connect them in reference to Types. To equate this view as similar to FV is the logical fallacy of equivocation.
If you deny the fact that the “salvation” (sozo = rescue) of Noah and his family from the flood was NOT good news, then It would be difficult to articulate bad news.
In regards to the FV, do you believe the Roman Catholic Church believes in the same Trinity as found in the Bible? Do they have the same Trinity as the one you embrace? If so, then logically, you are closer to FV heresy then you realize.
Hopefully this will result in putting the bow and arrow down with the intent of unity towards the essential doctrines of the Christian faith.
If not, continue to challenge, I will continue to correct.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
Jean Cauvin,
You have not dealt with ANY of the quotes I provided concerning Van Til or Douglas Wilson (Van Til’s heretical offspring).
Your long mindless rant is irrelevant, and it shows you are intellectually bankrupt on these subjects.
Your accusations concerning Gordon H. Clark are hearsay. Let me remind you that hearsay concerning Clark, Van Til, or Santa Clause is not considered scholarship.
There is only one Gospel; It is Justification By Faith Alone.
Calvinism is Christianity,
Monty L. Collier
This is like having to listen to two terriers yapping at each other.
Hi Monty,
Perhaps you and Sproul can ride off in the sunset. I believe Sproul uses that quote, “Calvinism is Christianity.”
I’m not saying there’s a problem, but your identification has been made.
Sproul has monetary and theological agendas attached to Gerstner’s natural theology. Sproul also believes that Thomas Aquinas is a Christian (he is a pagan burning in hell).
His attacks against Van Til are emotionally based. Sproul has failed miserably in the field of apologetics. This is why he doesn’t debate. When he does on rare occasion, he is taken to the slaughter house on intellectual thought.
Though his lectures on philosophy are sometimes quite good to listen to.
I dealt with your questions. It appears mute since you evidently have pinned the tail on the donkey.
I’m looking forward to more of your postings regarding subjects in which your intelligence might escape from its cage.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).